Waron Terra
-
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareA: Yes! I'm an optimistic person. #1. I'm not sure as to what is right, but what they're doing now is wrong. For a start, stop using double standards, and take a look at Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, India Sri Lanka and Phillipines. The first 3 are terrorist states. The last 3 are hit by terrorism, external and internal. #2. Read #1 #3. Sadly, it might. #4. No, by any sane person who thinks all men (and women, of course) are equal. #5. :confused: Sorry, you'll have to educate me there. :-O Regards,
Vikram. ----------------------------- My site due for a massive update Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareThere was a guy on NPR talking about the phrase "war on terror" and a caller called in asking if this war would have the same non-results as the "war on drugs". Basically, the guy said that the word "war" is wrong. For the life of me, I can't remember how he termed it, but it was basically the word you would use to indicate a never ending conflict that needs constant vigilence and supression, because it will never go away. But here's my answers: Q. No. As long as there are people, there will be fanatics (see #2) 2. Yes and no. A different administration, a different set of priorities. Especially when the US economy can no longer be ignored. At this point, the fed is in trouble, 40+ states are having major deficit problems, etc. I'm just waiting for the shoe to drop, as it were. 3. Yes, but variances based on administration 4. No, but like so many other things, people will adapt. 5. no opinion Thankfully, the administration of this country changes every 4 to 8 years. Even if a different Republican is in office, he/she(???) will have a different agenda and staff. Hopefully the world can survive until then, and is smart enough to wait out the current administration's inane policies. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files" -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareI think GWB is doing an average job on the "War on Terror". IMO he should do a lot less talking to the press/public and a lot more international diplomacy. #1 - The "war" can end once ALL of the first world countries decide terrorism has to end and takes it seriously. Whether this will ever happen is another story. IMO the culture clash is too great and a concensus will never be reached. The UN is a waste of time and money to this end. #2 - As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. That is true of every nation. We live in dangerous times with no great world-wide harmonious epiphonies on the horizon. #3 - Yes, people are generally sheep. Socialism breeds this attitude and fear nurtures it. #4 - No. #5 - I'd much rather eat a Rueben sandwich than a clay sandwich if that's what you mean. ;) Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
-
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? I think the war on terrorism is like the war on drugs. It will last for as long as you want to fight it. As with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, failure will be seen as grounds for pursuing an unchanged policy with greater intensity. John Carson
-
I think GWB is doing an average job on the "War on Terror". IMO he should do a lot less talking to the press/public and a lot more international diplomacy. #1 - The "war" can end once ALL of the first world countries decide terrorism has to end and takes it seriously. Whether this will ever happen is another story. IMO the culture clash is too great and a concensus will never be reached. The UN is a waste of time and money to this end. #2 - As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. That is true of every nation. We live in dangerous times with no great world-wide harmonious epiphonies on the horizon. #3 - Yes, people are generally sheep. Socialism breeds this attitude and fear nurtures it. #4 - No. #5 - I'd much rather eat a Rueben sandwich than a clay sandwich if that's what you mean. ;) Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
Mike Mullikin wrote: The "war" can end once ALL of the first world countries decide terrorism has to end and takes it seriously. which first world countries don't take it seriously? many of them have been suffering with terrorism for decades. and, what does Belgium's attitude towards terrorism have to do with what a guy in the mid-east decides to do with his block of C-4 ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Socialism breeds this attitude and fear nurtures it. many these changes were implemented by Ashcroft's DOJ. are you saying Ashcroft is a socialist? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareWar? The war is over. :| And Clay all the way bay-beee!! J
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? I think the war on terrorism is like the war on drugs. It will last for as long as you want to fight it. As with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, failure will be seen as grounds for pursuing an unchanged policy with greater intensity. John Carson
John Carson wrote: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict yes, i was thinking the exact same thing while i was running last night. it seems that for the last few years, Israelis have elected people on the idea that the new guy will finally "get tough" on terrorism, because the last guy wasn't doing enough. even though years of Israel's toughness only seems to have increased the number of suicide bombings (ie. the method has been a total failure, if keeping Israel safe from suicide bombings is a goal), it looks like they area afraid to elect anyone who advocates a different approach.
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: Q: Can such a war end? Sure. Now, whether it can be won or not, that's something else... Chris Losinger wrote: 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? Well, however long the US stands, my guess is it will be somewhat short of eternity. And its memory persists longer, then i'd hope it is remembered for something other than a "war on terror". Chris Losinger wrote: Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? Well, of course not, there's absolutely no history of such things happening in this country, how could you even... *shog contemplates starting a few seeds in a back room* ...ok, prolly, yeah. Chris Losinger wrote: 4. Is this acceptable? NO! I refuse to accept it! Nor am i particularly accepting of this whole "gravity" thing! :mad: Chris Losinger wrote: 5. Clay or Rueben? Clay. It feels so much nicer on my skin.
- Shog9 -
I'd show a smile but I'm too weak I'd share with you, could I only speak
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The "war" can end once ALL of the first world countries decide terrorism has to end and takes it seriously. which first world countries don't take it seriously? many of them have been suffering with terrorism for decades. and, what does Belgium's attitude towards terrorism have to do with what a guy in the mid-east decides to do with his block of C-4 ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Socialism breeds this attitude and fear nurtures it. many these changes were implemented by Ashcroft's DOJ. are you saying Ashcroft is a socialist? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: which first world countries don't take it seriously? many of them have been suffering with terrorism for decades. Suffering from terrorism is a far cry from doing something about it. Coddling terrorists and asking them to play nice doesn't work. Committing money and people towards finding, arresting and imprisoning terrorists would be a good start. Not letting a dictator who supports terrorism thumb his nose at you for over a decade while he's suppressing and murdering his citizens comes to mind. Getting the US (and others) to treat all other nations (read Saudia Arabia, NK, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, etc...) equally seems logical. Chris Losinger wrote: what does Belgium's attitude towards terrorism have to do with what a guy in the mid-east decides to do with his block of C-4 ? Maybe, just maybe, we stop the guy from getting the C-4 to begin with. Chris Losinger wrote: many these changes were implemented by Ashcroft's DOJ. are you saying Ashcroft is a socialist? I meant that the public's acceptance of these abuses is sheep-like and bred from socialism. The abuses themselves come from power-hungry politicians who feed on fear and lies. Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
-
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software1: Yes, if we all become shiney, happy people 2: Yes, but I think it's called security and not war. 3: I'm pretty sure the "chatter in the system" referred to these days is something Big Brother has been listening to for some time now. So the excuse "we're at war" is either an extension of the excuses used during the Cold War, or just a media thing. 4: Hell no, we won't go!! 5: Ruben BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Chris Losinger wrote: which first world countries don't take it seriously? many of them have been suffering with terrorism for decades. Suffering from terrorism is a far cry from doing something about it. Coddling terrorists and asking them to play nice doesn't work. Committing money and people towards finding, arresting and imprisoning terrorists would be a good start. Not letting a dictator who supports terrorism thumb his nose at you for over a decade while he's suppressing and murdering his citizens comes to mind. Getting the US (and others) to treat all other nations (read Saudia Arabia, NK, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, etc...) equally seems logical. Chris Losinger wrote: what does Belgium's attitude towards terrorism have to do with what a guy in the mid-east decides to do with his block of C-4 ? Maybe, just maybe, we stop the guy from getting the C-4 to begin with. Chris Losinger wrote: many these changes were implemented by Ashcroft's DOJ. are you saying Ashcroft is a socialist? I meant that the public's acceptance of these abuses is sheep-like and bred from socialism. The abuses themselves come from power-hungry politicians who feed on fear and lies. Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
Mike Mullikin wrote: Maybe, just maybe, we stop the guy from getting the C-4 to begin with. ok. consider it done. now assume they'll use something a little less exotic, something they can make in their basements: dynamite or good old gunpowder. do we now have to control the distribution of sulphur, charcoal and saltpeter? ok. consider it done. now there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else. Mike Mullikin wrote: Not letting a dictator who supports terrorism thumb his nose at you for over a decade while he's suppressing and murdering his citizens comes to mind. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. true, Saddam was a threat to Israel, but no more than any other country in that region. Mike Mullikin wrote: Getting the US (and others) to treat all other nations (read Saudia Arabia, NK, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, etc...) equally seems logical. logical, sure. but as you can tell by looking, it's simply not going to happen. -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: Q: Can such a war end? No. It is much like the "war on poverty"...There will always be poor people(by definition) and there will always be fanatics. We can, however, make it harder for terroists to do their evil. Chris Losinger wrote: 4. Is this acceptable? No...I don't like having my freedoms restricted. But I do think that we should limit who enters the country and we should watch those we allow to stay for extended periods. Rueben Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Maybe, just maybe, we stop the guy from getting the C-4 to begin with. ok. consider it done. now assume they'll use something a little less exotic, something they can make in their basements: dynamite or good old gunpowder. do we now have to control the distribution of sulphur, charcoal and saltpeter? ok. consider it done. now there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else. Mike Mullikin wrote: Not letting a dictator who supports terrorism thumb his nose at you for over a decade while he's suppressing and murdering his citizens comes to mind. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. true, Saddam was a threat to Israel, but no more than any other country in that region. Mike Mullikin wrote: Getting the US (and others) to treat all other nations (read Saudia Arabia, NK, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, etc...) equally seems logical. logical, sure. but as you can tell by looking, it's simply not going to happen. -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Softwarenow there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else Not in Iraq. Have you seen the reports on the gas lines there? :)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Maybe, just maybe, we stop the guy from getting the C-4 to begin with. ok. consider it done. now assume they'll use something a little less exotic, something they can make in their basements: dynamite or good old gunpowder. do we now have to control the distribution of sulphur, charcoal and saltpeter? ok. consider it done. now there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else. Mike Mullikin wrote: Not letting a dictator who supports terrorism thumb his nose at you for over a decade while he's suppressing and murdering his citizens comes to mind. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. true, Saddam was a threat to Israel, but no more than any other country in that region. Mike Mullikin wrote: Getting the US (and others) to treat all other nations (read Saudia Arabia, NK, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, etc...) equally seems logical. logical, sure. but as you can tell by looking, it's simply not going to happen. -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareChris Losinger wrote: now there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else. So what's your point? If we can't 100% stop a lunatic from killing civilians we shouldn't even atleast try to make it more difficult?? That's a defeatist attitude even for you. Chris Losinger wrote: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. true, Saddam was a threat to Israel, but no more than any other country in that region. Hence my comment about treating all other nations equally. Chris Losinger wrote: logical, sure. but as you can tell by looking, it's simply not going to happen. Never has... Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
-
I think GWB is doing an average job on the "War on Terror". IMO he should do a lot less talking to the press/public and a lot more international diplomacy. #1 - The "war" can end once ALL of the first world countries decide terrorism has to end and takes it seriously. Whether this will ever happen is another story. IMO the culture clash is too great and a concensus will never be reached. The UN is a waste of time and money to this end. #2 - As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. That is true of every nation. We live in dangerous times with no great world-wide harmonious epiphonies on the horizon. #3 - Yes, people are generally sheep. Socialism breeds this attitude and fear nurtures it. #4 - No. #5 - I'd much rather eat a Rueben sandwich than a clay sandwich if that's what you mean. ;) Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
Mike Mullikin wrote: As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. Correction: As long as the US continues its double standards of supporting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and not helping victims like India, Sri Lanka and Phillipines , this will continue. Especially Saudi Arabia, which the US supports, where most terrorists (inc. that as**ole OBL)seem to come from. And what about Pakistan and NK exchanging nuke technology for missile technology? There is one particular conflict I haven't mentioned in the previous paragraph, on purpose. This is because my own mind is uncertain on this issue.
Vikram. ----------------------------- My site due for a massive update Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
Mike Mullikin wrote: As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. Correction: As long as the US continues its double standards of supporting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and not helping victims like India, Sri Lanka and Phillipines , this will continue. Especially Saudi Arabia, which the US supports, where most terrorists (inc. that as**ole OBL)seem to come from. And what about Pakistan and NK exchanging nuke technology for missile technology? There is one particular conflict I haven't mentioned in the previous paragraph, on purpose. This is because my own mind is uncertain on this issue.
Vikram. ----------------------------- My site due for a massive update Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: As long as the US continues its double standards of supporting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and not helping victims like India, Sri Lanka and Phillipines , this will continue. The US is far from perfect, but all the "victims" you mention have plenty of culpability in their own situation. Everything is not always the US's fault. However, if you read a few more of my posts in this thread, you'll see that I mostly agree with the need for the US to treat nations more equally. Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
-
Chris Losinger wrote: now there's propane or gasoline, both of which are available by the truckload in any town in the US, and probalby everywhere else. So what's your point? If we can't 100% stop a lunatic from killing civilians we shouldn't even atleast try to make it more difficult?? That's a defeatist attitude even for you. Chris Losinger wrote: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. true, Saddam was a threat to Israel, but no more than any other country in that region. Hence my comment about treating all other nations equally. Chris Losinger wrote: logical, sure. but as you can tell by looking, it's simply not going to happen. Never has... Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
Mike Mullikin wrote: So what's your point? that stopping terrorism by focusing on the weapons is a losing game. Mike Mullikin wrote: Never has so that brings us back to the original question: how can such a "war" be won - assuming after winning, we'd go back to what everyone assumes is the "normal" way of life in the US ? or, are we in for a future of secret detentions of US citizens, constant fear, the binary terror alert chart (it will never go below yellow, and red would cause a panic, so we're stuck with a two color chart) -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals Software -
Here's a question to everyone who thinks GWB is doing a good job in his War on Terror (of course I will accept answers from anyone): Q: Can such a war end? 1: If so, how? 2: If not, does that mean the US will be "at war" forever? 3: Many people are using the "we're at war" excuse for restricting freedoms and/or choosing unusual interpretations of the laws regarding detainment, trial and evidence. Does a permanent state of war mean we can expect these abuses to become the norm? 4. Is this acceptable? 5. Clay or Rueben? -c
Chris Losinger
Smaller Animals SoftwareHow do you get a police state ? You let people in power do what they want. Its up to the voters in the US to pick canidates who will do something instead of deciding between two clones. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: As long as the US exists there will be people that want to hurt/kill it. Correction: As long as the US continues its double standards of supporting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and not helping victims like India, Sri Lanka and Phillipines , this will continue. Especially Saudi Arabia, which the US supports, where most terrorists (inc. that as**ole OBL)seem to come from. And what about Pakistan and NK exchanging nuke technology for missile technology? There is one particular conflict I haven't mentioned in the previous paragraph, on purpose. This is because my own mind is uncertain on this issue.
Vikram. ----------------------------- My site due for a massive update Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: SaudiArab, where most terrorists (inc. that as**ole OBL Terrorist can born in any country. If OBL was born in SaudiArab, then it by no means that entire country is a terrorist nation. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: And what about Pakistan and NK exchanging nuke technology for missile technology? Didn't India and Russia helped Libya in missile development programme ??
-
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: As long as the US continues its double standards of supporting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and not helping victims like India, Sri Lanka and Phillipines , this will continue. The US is far from perfect, but all the "victims" you mention have plenty of culpability in their own situation. Everything is not always the US's fault. However, if you read a few more of my posts in this thread, you'll see that I mostly agree with the need for the US to treat nations more equally. Mike Mullikin :beer:
A laundromat is no place to meet women. Afterall, if she can't afford her own washer and dryer how can she support you?
Mike wrote: Everything is not always the US's fault. Agreed 100%. But not everyone thinks like you and I do. And they're the majority. However... India- do you know that even a little bit of pressure from the US goes a loooong way in reining in Pakistan? And the aid they get from Dubya goes into terrorist training camps, meant for Kashmir and Afghanistan (to a certain extent, even Russia). Oh yes, even the US- where did Ramzi Youzef come from? Many others, prolly (in the case of US), but I can't remember anybody else' name right now. Sri Lanka- Most of the support the LTTE gets is from India (sadly) and the US. Phillipines- I don't know the situation intimately, so I won't argue on that count.
Vikram. ----------------------------- My site due for a massive update Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.